romansh

So who is the arbiter of what me mean by God? Are Progressive Christians welcoming of other perspectives of God or not? Who is the arbiter of what can be considered, in the latest version, "God". My "rock" might happen to be a reflection of the universe. And you will find even the latest version of the points does not require any worship of rocks etc even God.

Yes Do you have to self identify as a Progressive Christian to be welcomed on this site? Then it is not ALL Ultimately it would be trying to change someone's behavior regardless of what tools you would use. To use Joseph's term our idealized concept of Jesus would be accepting of these people. Not necessarily apathetic to what they have done. And yet I think I am helping while I try and explain my point of view and hope that you might share it.

I will let you decide whether it is "good" or not. But this flexibility does make for confusion. Now I lack belief in God. But we can define God as the universe (existence if you like) then we are just playing word games here. It boils down to it does not matter what we believe so long as we call it God. A couple of phrases in another context come to mind: word jugglery, quagmire of evasion, and wretched subterfuge.

Burl highlighted point4 on another post And I thought Billmc asked an interesting question in one of the subfora and I thought the replies were interesting. The question Bill asked was, is Progressive Christianity welcoming of: Pedophiliacs? Rapists? Those who commit incest? Sadomasochists? The parsing that went on in the replies was interesting. But end of the day these people are included in ALL are they not? My first question what would our idealized concept of Jesus do and how would we walk in this idealized path? And it is implied that Progressive Christianity is not here to proselytize? The first two of the groups and probably the third are in need of some help. And are we saying that Progressive Christianity is not a suitable vehicle for help/change?

Thanks Paul I too am suspect of creed being "all". I generally did not put things in … more take them out. So for example, the word sacred, could mean, connected with god dedicated to a religious purpose deserving of veneration These 8 points in places capture too much, at least in my way of seeing things. Well I have never have invested much time in Christianity and never bought into it much more than it being a metaphor for reality. In my university years I learnt that there are more accurate metaphors for reality and that we don't have to mistake our fingers for the universe we are pointing to. I see Progressive Christianity as a stepping stone and not necessarily an end point. A stepping stone away from, including but not limited to: The Bible is the Word of God Jesus is God The Rapture Sin is sin Heaven and Hell (courtesy of Joseph) Now where would a Progressive Christian's path move on to, agnosticism, atheism, something else? I just can't help thinking there are better resources that describe our world, how we might interact and more importantly the underlying reasons for the direction of our interactions. I'm not saying these modern resources are better but only more accurate, more inclusive and we can use our own education and logic to fill in the gaps. Having said, I see Progressive Christianity as a more stable stepping stone than traditional Christianity.

So which would you rather have an atheist (lacks belief) who goes about trying to help people Or say Donald Trump a Christian who professes belief? Actions speak louder than beliefs. But I agree beliefs help shape our actions. There is a famous parable in the Bible that speaks to this, I believe.

For what reasons? In her book The Case for God, Karen Armstrong admonishes (in a very nice way) that Christians put too much emphasis on belief and not enough on action. And point 2 says (paraphrasing) action is the fullest expression of our belief.

Thank you … that is what I suspected. The next question is can the various States change this so the is more representative of the electorates wishes?

When you say 'committed' is that by law or precedent? What is causing the electors to give 100% of the electors' s votes one way or another? I'm not sure how I can ask this question to get a direct answer.

But where should the emphasis be?

Here is how I would have worded the eight points. Progressive Christians: Understand the teachings of Jesus can lead to an awareness of the interconnectedness of all life, the inanimate and the universe. Accept that science and other traditions provide many ways to understand this interconnectedness. Seek community that is inclusive of all people. (note don't bother with examples). Understand that the way we behave towards one another is the fullest expression of what we believe. Question rather than believe in absolutes. Strive for peace and justice among all people. Strive to protect and restore the integrity of our Earth. Continue to learn through life. and a bonus: Embrace love and compassion when we find it. well this is a splitting of the eighth point.

OK if I understand it correctly California Electors by law must cast all 55 votes in favour of Democrats if the Democrats win the popular vote in California? Or is this just precedent? from wiki Even though the aggregate national popular vote is calculated by state officials, media organizations, and the Federal Election Commission, the people only indirectly elect the president, as the national popular vote is not the basis for electing the president

Let's take a step back here Thormas I thought Progressive Christianity was more about how we live our lives and what we use as a guide, not about what we believe.

Opinion Opinion likely false Opinion, but supported by evidence Opinion, but is simply a definitional issue. So this may well be accepted by most Progressive Christians. Opinion … depends on how rigid is one's view of a Messiah. It could be argued Buddha beat modern progressive theology to it by two and half millennia.

Opinion, the accuracy of this would depend on the veracity of which principles we are referring to. The previous set required no such belief.

I did ask, does the electoral college have to ignore the will of the people and follow precedent.

No … happily married for 43 years and counting. Depending on how the universe unfolds

Just ignoring the seven outliers for the moment there were 531 that voted for either Trump or Clinton Ignoring the outliers for the moment On 46% of the vote, Trump got 57% of the electoral college and Clinton on 48% of the vote got 43% of the college. What is stopping the college voting in a way that represents their electorate, rather than ignoring the opposition in their own electoral state boundaries?

You did not answer my question.

OK fair enough, you believe Jesus (if he existed was more or less as portrayed or even if at all) he is Christ (not in the sense that has held sway for close to two millennia) but in a frankly minority view. As you point out it is a redefinition of Christ and Christian. I am not sure how existence (Kingdom) is radically new either as these ideas have been floating around for a while. So it goes back to my earlier point, if an atheist defines themsel(f) as a Christian does that make them a Progressive Christian?

While precedent might not be on the side of the 5 million, were the electoral college obligated to vote the way they did?

Succinctly … do you believe Jesus was the Messiah?

Fair enough, was he actually the Messiah? Not according to Jewish and Islamic traditions? Do you think he was the Messiah? (ie Christ)

Was Jesus in fact a Christian?